On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:04:05 -0600, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:47:56 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote: >>Agree to disagree. I haven't checked the doc and maybe it isn't documented >>that that field or >>any field is limited to 40 characters, but it is not a bug to be fixed. >> >I shall disagree. For example, suppose there were an option to display >a data set name in that 4-character field. You can disagree all you want but these are WADs. Right or wrong, IBM makes a design choice that turned out to be annoying that requires an RFE. If it's small enough and enough of an impact, IBM sometimes chooses to fix it as a defect in this release. This doesn't appear to be causing you any pain. Some enhancements and defects aren't worth fixing with limited resources. >There are multiple ways it could have been done right: >o The caller could provide a variable-length reply buffer. >o The service could return a pointer to a string. These are solutions to some problem in your mind. IBM's design choices would determine if these would meet their requirements. Could it be that there are more requirements such as security, MLWTO, MPF, automation, SSI, TSO commands or requirements we simply did not consider. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
